WARNING: I’m told that most bloggers will not read more than 1,000
words without beginning to skim the article. If you are one of these
people, you need to skip to the section below that states ONLY A
THOUSAND MORE WORDS TO GO. If, on the other hand, you are someone who
doesn’t like long introductions, and just need to skip to the ‘meat’ of
the article, you’ll want to scroll to the section that starts THE POINT
WHERE THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY BEGINS.
Great! Now that I’ve redirected those people, I can spend some time setting up the article with just a few personal comments.
First, many thanks to Rey for giving me the opportunity to guest
contribute on this blog. I consider it a privilege to be asked and hope
that I can at least fulfill some expectations.
Speaking of expectations, most people believe that they can
expect to pigeon hole just about any Protestant into one of two
categories: Calvinist or Arminian. I am not a Calvinist. And before my
Arminian friends get too excited, I am not an Arminian. To place me
into either camp is to say that I believe things that I don’t. For
better or worse, I try to avoid defining myself by a theology since I
find it to coral what God may be trying to reveal through Scripture. So
I promise not to try and label you something that you’re not and
hopefully that will be reciprocal and keep us from assigning guilt by
association.
And while we are on the topic of Scripture – please use it as the basis
of your statements. I have read parts or all of the major works of
Calvin, Edwards, Spurgeon, Sproul, Piper, White and MacArthur. I
respect these men, their scholarship and their passion for believing
what they do. I don’t expect to see them in heaven since they will be
busy at work closer to the throne of God than I could ever in my
wildest dreams hope to be. That having been said, none of them are
either above or equal to Scripture. I am guessing that most of the
people who will be responding are intelligent enough to digest what
these men have said and rearticulate it in your own words. So, if you
are going to respond to these postings, please do so without long drawn
out quotes from some wonderful leader of the church to support the
claims you make.
By the way, I come from a school of thought that links the
sinfulness that I am all to well aware of with my finiteness and comes
up with a theological hermeneutic that states that there must be parts
of my theology that are wrong. I am very open to hearing where you
think I am wrong. However, because I am not looking for the writings
from past or present church leaders, I will have to ask that when you
are showing me that I am wrong, that you do so with Scripture which
both contextually and explicitly states what you are saying. At any
point that Scripture is not clear, I would rather say ‘I don’t know’
than to try to interject my faulty theology to patch a ‘hole’ that God
has left. If this manner of taking Scripture as far as Scripture will
allow is not something you are comfortable with, then you’ll probably
not like what I am going to write.
And just so everyone is clear of my own material, let it be
known that I pilfer and pirate just about everything I think from
others far greater than I. For most of the material that you will find
on these postings, I am indebted to C. Gordon Olson’s book “Beyond
Calvinism and Arminianism.” If you have even the vaguest interest in
what I’ve written (whether you agree or disagree), I would highly
recommend his extremely detailed yet very readable book. In spite of my
respect for him, I do not agree with everything that Dr. Olson writes
(and I am completely convinced that he disagrees with me on some points
as well). So, if you have some prior beef with Dr. Olson that you feel
is just waiting to burst forth, bring it to him, not me.
Furthermore, in sharing these thoughts in both classroom and blog
settings I have already been anathematized, condemned, and sent to
hell. If you feel the need to give your own personal support of these
past decisions, please take into consideration my lovely wife and four
beautiful children who look forward with great anticipation to spending
eternity with me (preferably in the heavenly realms). So, since I know
of no Protestant theology that guarantees a person is headed to eternal
damnation prior to physical death, please hold out hope that someday I
might be saved from whatever heresies you see in my writing and respond
in kind.
Oh – and if we’re going to be dialoging together, let’s keep it
fun. Feel free to liberally use emoticons and anything else that will
help us understand that along with our Father in heaven, you have a
sense of humor (or at the very least, a sense of sarcasm – Job 38:5,
19-21). Though the topics we discuss are serious, please let’s not take
ourselves so seriously that we forget that we are simply finite,
infants discussing the mind of God.
There, I’ve gotten that off my chest :). Now I can actually begin because you have reached
THE POINT WHERE THE ARTICLE ACTUALLY BEGINS.
How do I begin an article on a topic that is hotly debated and
has been written about by nearly every major theologian in the past 400
years…Well, let’s start with some history.
I was born into a Reformed family which for me means I was
eating TULIPS before I was nibbling on solid food. I went to a Reformed
church and was educated in a Reformed school K-12. So, needless to say,
I have some familiarity with Calvin and his teachings. I did not leave
the Reformed church I grew up in for doctrinal reasons. I left because
(though I didn’t know it at the time) God was preparing me for ministry
at another body of believers. Though in this article you are going to
hear about disagreements I have with Calvinism, please do not think
that I am stating that it is a defunct theology. I think the best way
I’d describe what I am trying to do in these articles is to help
redefine the parts of TULIP that I have difficulty aligning with
Scripture.
For a brief history of how TULIP developed, go to this link.
I am actually going to be looking at TULIPS…I think the addition of the
S is essential since it underlies all the other thinking in Calvinism
and is a topic that must be included to understand the normal model of
TULIP. The acronym stands for a generally chronological understanding
of salvation (soteriology). Each letter stands for the following:
T = Total Depravity
U = Unconditional Election
L = Limited Atonement
I = Irresistible Grace
P = Perseverance (or Preservation) of the Saints
S = Sovereignty of God
The
‘S’ is not normally on most TULIP models, but I think by the end of our
series, you’ll see why it needs to be added. What I’ll do in this
article is give a brief support of Total Depravity from a Calvinist
perspective. Then I’ll show reasons why I don’t believe portions of it
align with Scripture.
Total Depravity from a Calvinist Perspective
Mankind sins. I think that part we all agree on. Calvinist theology
states that all mankind apart from salvation through Christ is totally
depraved. By this, they mean that each and every person is utterly
unable to do enough good things to warrant their salvation (Romans
3:21-28). In fact, because mankind is so stained with sin, even the
things that look good from a human perspective have been tainted by our
sin and so amount to nothing before God (in fact, God calls all our
good works menstrual rags – Isaiah 64:6). Calvinism also means that
mankind is so enamored with their sinfulness that they will never, of
their own will, ever seek God or even care to think about anything that
is remotely close to Him (Romans 3:9-20). Though we may not do every
sin conceivable, sin stains every area of our lives (Psalm 51:7, Isaiah
1:18). We are in our sin, we are happy to be in our sin, we want to
stay in our sin. We are rebels. We are dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1-7).
This last statement is the summarizing statement of Total
Depravity – we are dead in our sins. Many Calvinists will also use the
metaphor of Ezekiel 26:22-32 that our hearts are hearts of stone –
‘stone cold dead’ as I’ve heard many Calvinists put it.
Because of this deadness, we are completely unable to do
anything to please God. Thus, we are even unable to place our faith in
God. God, in His grace and through the Holy Spirit, regenerates certain
hearts (which hearts are regenerated will be discussed in the next
posting) giving them the spiritual life that they need to have in order
to be in relationship to God. Once a person has been regenerated, God
can give them the gift of faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), which is the means
by which they are able to trust in God and thus be placed in Christ and
saved (Ephesians 1:13).
ONLY A THOUSAND MORE WORDS TO GO
Where I Think Calvinists Lack Scriptural Support
Actually,
I believe in most of what Total Depravity states. I agree with
everything in the first paragraph of the previous section. Mankind is
sinful, he is content with his sinfulness, and will not pursue God
ever.
I think Calvinists lack Biblical support in three areas. The
first area of disagreement is that regeneration precedes faith. I have
asked many Calvinists to give me one verse that explicitly states that
regeneration occurs prior to faith. None, to this day, have been given
to me (1 John 5:1, the most common one given, is insufficient because
it does not rule out that faith could have occurred prior to the
regeneration that is stated in that verse). I understand that if you
accept all that Calvinism teaches about death and faith, that
regeneration is a logical deduction from those definitions. However, I
can produce many verses that explicitly place faith prior to salvation
(Luke 8:12, John 1:12, 3:16, 4:14, 6:35, 6:40, 6:58, 20:31, Acts
2:37-38, 8:12-16, 13:39, over 18 verses in Romans where our
justification is by faith, all of Galatians 3, Ephesians 1:13, Hebrews
4:2-3, 1 Peter 1:23, and many more less explicit verses ). Some
Calvinists will argue that these verses implicitly state that we are
regenerated, given faith and then saved – but that means that there is
a time where we have the life of God but no salvation? Moreover, there
are verses listed above that state we have faith prior to life (John
20:31 is the best of these) – are we to say that we have life, faith
and then life again? In addition, Jesus in Mark 6:1-6 is amazed at
people’s lack of faith which makes no sense unless He expected faith to
be in the unregenerate. Not only that, but Jesus explicitly states that
the dead will hear Jesus’ voice and will live (John 5:25). I would be
most indebted to any Calvinist that can give me any verse in Scripture
that explicitly states that regeneration occurs prior to faith. Apart
from that evidence and given the way that Scripture presents faith
prior to regeneration, I think it’s important to redefine our meanings
of death and faith to accommodate Scripture, not our theology.
So how are we to understand death as it is presented in
Scripture? We think of death as in-animation or the inability to act.
Dead people can’t do anything. Calvinists apply this idea to
Scripture’s statement that we are dead in sin and thus state a person
is incapable of exercising faith because they can’t do anything
spiritual. Is this, though, a Biblical understanding of death?
I think that a clearer Biblical picture of death is separation
from God rather than a sense of inability. Adam and Eve in the day that
they sinned died – part of that death was not only spiritual but the
physical separation from the presence of God. The eternal punishment
which is called the second death often contains images of separation
(Matthew 8:12, 22:13, 25:30, Luke 16:26, Revelation 20:10-15). When
describing the life of eternity, Revelation 21 and 22 seem to focus
strongly on the presence of God. From these verses, we can state that a
person who is dead in their sins is separated from God (for now, simply
spiritually – ultimately, in our whole being). When they exercise their
faith in God, they receive life and I believe we can Scripturally state
that life is precipitated by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit – they
have life because they spiritually are in the presence of God through
the Holy Spirit. They will have the culmination of eternal life when
they live body and spirit in the presence of God forever.
Finally, I think the Calvinists lack Biblical support in their
contention that those dead in sin cannot exercise faith. Calvinists
support this for two reasons. First is that dead people can’t do
anything spiritually. But if we accept what was stated above, then this
reason is already dealt with. A second Calvinist argument is that if a
person dead in sin exercised faith, there would be a righteous act that
had been done on the part of the sinner that gained them salvation.
To this last point we must turn to Paul. In all of Paul’s writings
where he is speaking of faith and meritorious works (works that
supposedly gain us salvation-favor in the eyes of God), he always
places faith and works opposite each other (Romans 4 and Galatians 3 as
examples). Thus, faith cannot be a meritorious work. Jesus speaks of
faith being a work (John 6:29), but I know of no theologian that thinks
Jesus and Paul are speaking of the same kind of works. James sees works
as meritorious but clearly James is speaking of works that are produced
by the life of a person of faith (i.e. the physical representation of
the presence of faith in the believer’s life – James 2:24) and thus one
who is already saved. So Scripture would not seem to support the
contention that faith can be a meritorious work. Instead, it is exactly
because it cannot be a meritorious work that it is the means of our
receiving our salvation.
So How Do We Understand Total Depravity Based on Scripture
Mankind
in sinfulness is incapable of desiring or pursuing God. However,
because of God’s love for mankind, God is able to pursue them (this
seems to be one of the main themes throughout Scripture). I believe He
does this through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who makes every
person aware of their position before God in their sin (John 6:7-11).
At this point, a person may or may not exercise faith in God. If they
do, they are regenerated by the life of the Holy Spirit which indwells
them and places them in Christ, whose perfect life and sacrifice covers
our own life. If a person does not exercise faith, they continue in
their sinfulness. I believe this takes into consideration all
Scriptural passages that pertain to man’s sinfulness and his/her
exercising faith in Jesus.
-Pastor Russ-
A message from Rey: Now brothers and sisters, Brother Russ
surely welcomes commentary. I merely ask that you offer the same grace and
patience that the brother has extended in posting this article. Like I said in
Sunday’s announcement, this is posted for discussion with a focus on the topic
at hand: Total Depravity. Be gracious and reflect Christ in You as speak to my
guest. Also, in the future I want to have a blogger of the Reformed perspective
offer his view on TULIP(S?) I will not invite just any blogger to do this. If
you post with the grace and focus on Scripture as the brother has done here, I
will likely ask you (to which you can than say “no way, heretic!” :) )
 |
Rey's Studies (Topics) 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Comments
Dead is dead...
Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 09:59:32
Russ,
I believe you are imagining too large a gap between regeneration and faith. I believe they are two sides of the same coin. People have faith, even faith in God, but this is not saving faith. Faith becomes saving faith through the effectual calling and regeneration of the Holy Spirit. Apart from regeneration they remain blinded by sin and cannot see their need for a Savior. If they cannot see their need then they will not and cannot exercise saving faith.
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 10:25:57
Tim - I understand that position...However, if conviction shows them their need for a Savior, then we must ask can the faith that you admit they have be directed in a saving way towards God? If not, Scripturally, why? Understand that I am not saying that they are pursuing God...instead, God pursues them and makes them aware of their position before Him. If that occurs, why could they not then place their faith in Him?
Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 10:43:31
Russ - If God pursues them and makes them aware of their position and their need of a Savior then I understand that to be an effectual call which is a part of regeneration which is on the same coin as faith. Apart from this conviction, they have no saving faith. They may believe that God exists. They may believe that God can and does work miracles but they cannot and will not believe that they are in need of a Savior and Jesus is the only Savior available. For a good example of this type of pagan, listen to the Michael Savage radio show.
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 10:54:24
Tim - If I'm understanding what you're saying, then I think we can be in agreement (though, my guess is that we will find ourselves at odds when we get to Irresistible Grace and whether faith is a gift or not
Written by Name: on 2005-05-02 11:22:35Acts 26:12-15 is a good example. Saul was busy about the priests business. He professed to have faith but by observation we know it wasn't saving faith. There was a great light, a voice, conviction (I believe these were the means of regeneration). Then Paul says, "Who are you, Lord?" Jesus reveals Himself and Paul is converted. Paul had a faith of sorts but Jesus wasn't the object of his faith until He (Jesus) revealed Himself to Saul. This is regeneration. It is being "born again". There is no definition here of how Paul applied faith in the Lord but the time frame is significant. A light, a voice, pricks (conviction), illumination (I am Jesus), Order of service (Arise and go). Somewhere between the illumination and the Order of service was salvation. Paul's faith was applied to the Lord and we see it in his works. He says, "I was not disobedient to the heavenly vision..." Regeneration and saving faith appear to be working simultaneously. However, Pastor Russ, I don't believe in "Prevenient Grace" and everyone's ability to believe. I'm sure we'll discuss that further.
tulips
Written by Dutchess: on 2005-05-02 12:50:42
Pastor Russ, you are a treasure. Since a tulip has 6 petals, the acronym should therefore really be T U L I P S.
I am looking forward to your explanation of all the petals from a non-calvinistic point of view!
I wonder if it really matters how many milliseconds or years pass between the beginning of faith and actual glorious salvation that results from it (especially in light of eternity)?
Written by Name: Pastor Russ on 2005-05-02 13:32:36
Tim - Lunch provides such energy :grin and with that energy I realized a part of your post that I had missed before. You stated that the calling was effectual by which I think you mean that all those whom God convicts must/will come to a saving faith. If I'm understanding you correctly, how would you understand that in light of John 16 where the conviction of the Spirit seems to be on all the unregenerate? I also do not hold to prevenient grace, so, I'm trying to slip that in
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 13:38:59
Dutchess - Sadly, I'm not that quick or smart...I just added the additional point since I think it is so critical to an understanding of why Calvinists typically are so reproached by the idea of making any change to TULIP....but I get ahead of myself :grin
Being saved, of course, is the whole point, and so once we are saved, you are technically right that it doesn't matter. But, on the other hand, I think it does matter in two ways: 1) How we interpret Scripture is vitally important - I am always challenged to make sure I approach Scripture to change what I think....I am much too tempted to approach Scripture to have it agree with my theology, and 2) what we believe is what we will do...thus, what we believe about these things will impact how we act. So, although I understand your point, I also think there are some very important items that do hang in the balance in how we approach these things.
Thanks for the encouragement!!
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-02 14:42:59
Pastor Russ: I appreciate your interpretation of death (Eph 2:1) as separation from God. It makes sense in the light of Scripture. Otherwise, if dead men can't believe, then neither can they sin or do anything, nor can they be held responsible.
I think the Lord Jesus dealt with this misinterpretation in Jn 5:24: "I tell you the truth, whoever hears My word and believes Him Who sent Me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. (Note: "whoever")
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 15:17:22
Klompman - to be fair, I don't think that you are completely representing a Calvinist view. Simply because a person cannot believe does not necessitate that they are not culpible for sin - though the less you say a person can do and the more that God must be directly causing what does happen, the closer you move the culpibility away from man and towards God. We will discuss this when we talk about Sovereignty of God.
Also, a Calvinist would respond that the only people who hear the word that John 5:24 speaks of are people who have been regenerated (a dead person cannot hear anything - thus the 'whoever' assumes the elect). However, as I noted before, this does not take into account the very clear teaching of John 16 where the conviction of the Holy Spirit is in the life of all unregenerate. I think that Calvinists make too much of physical death and have not done enough searching of Scripture for a description of spiritual death. Though there are similarities, I don't believe they are exactly parallel.
I'm glad it was helpful to you!!
John 16
Written by Tim on 2005-05-02 15:33:31
All whom God effectually calls will come but not all He convicts. Conviction of sin, righteousness and judgment are not the same as calling. There are none righteous, there are none who seek God. We are all condemned already because we are unbelievers and the Spirit convicts everyone of these truths so that we are all without excuse.
Written by PastorRuss on 2005-05-02 15:47:03
Tim - I've appreciated your input, but I have some questions....
Can you give me Scripture that would point to either 1) that calling is different than convicting, or 2) that if God calls, a person must come (i.e. that there is only an effectual calling and not a general calling).
As noted in my post, I completely agree that there are none righteous, that no one will seek God, and that we all stand condemned already because of our sin. I'm not suggesting that man seeks God.
Sadly, I am heading home now, but I'll try to get on this evening at home to respond... :sigh I was beginning to have so much fun
sin, righteousness and judgment
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-02 16:36:41
Just a quick note for point of discussion when considering these things. I have read everything and have loved the tone of the discussion brothers and sisters.
Quote:
Conviction of sin is the sin of unbelief, conviction of righteousness is that Christ went to the Father and conviction of judgment is that the ruler of this world is judged already.
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-02 16:36:54
Russ,
If you don't mind, let's discuss effectual vs. general calling when we get to the "I" in TULIP. My brain won't scatter too thin!
I believe the entire TULIP system hangs on Total Depravity. If you don't have Total Depravity then the rest is mute. If men aren't totally depraved then you don't need unconditional election. Election will be conditional. It will be based on man's ability to choose.
Russ - you said, "Mankind in sinfulness is incapable of desiring or pursuing God." You then said that God pursues men "through the conviction of the Holy Spirit who makes every person aware of their position before God in their sin. At this point, a person may or may not exercise faith in God."
If men are incapable of desiring or pursuing God and now through the convicting of the Holy Spirit they are somehow capable, it is either because of an effectual calling or prevenient grace. If, according to your explanation, it is an effectual calling, then all men are saved because God's calling is effectual unto salvation. If it is not effectual the the grace of conviction can be resisted. It is not Irresistable Grace. It is Prevenient Grace. The convicting removes man's inability to pursue God and makes it possible for him to do so. Christ's atonement is now universal and can be applied to all. The TULIP crumbles and the rest of our conversation is just beating the air. If man is left with the smallest of abilities, even a mustard seed of faith, salvation is based on Free-will and not Free Grace.
We are all wrapped from head to toe in sea-weed. We are entombed in the belly of a large fish and the fish has swam to the bottom of the sea. What act of our will or exercise of some supposed faith will free us from our condition? Nothing, it is hopeless. We must say with Jonah, "Salvation is of the Lord."
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-02 18:07:43
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the purpose of this discussion was to determine what the Scriptures say on the subject. So I'm a bit puzzled when you are responding to me with what the Calvinists would say or what their position is. May I suggest that you leave that to Tim? He's really good at it and I'm quite familiar with the Calvinist position or interpretation of the Bible. I prefer to believe the Lord Jesus Himself and He needs no help from Tim.
Written by Name: on 2005-05-02 22:50:21
Sorry for two responses in one, but my home computer has limited time
Tim Ŗ Im sorry to make this difficult, but I donҒt like the term prevenient grace because it is not a Biblical term and I dont agree with it. So, there are not only two options. Here are the passages that I think are critical to understanding this:
- mankind is dead in sin (Ephesians 2:1)
- there is an expectation of unregenerate people to have faith in God (Mark 6:6)
- faith comes from hearing the word of Christ (Romans 10:17)
- faith is a human phenonmenon never ascribed to God (Matt. 8:10, 8:13, 9:2, 9:22, 9:28-29, 15:28, Mark 2:5, 5:29, 5:34, 10:52, Luke 5:20, 7:9, 7:50, 8:48, 8:50, 17:19, 18:42 Җ in all these cases it is the individuals faith that is commended Җ not a faith that is given by God)
- God consistently calls people to seek Him (do a word search on seek I found over 50)
Our theology must be able to embrace all these. So, if we are to state that unregenerate man cannot exercise faith in God, here are my questions (please supply Scripture citations to back up what you are saying):
- How would you define death from Scripture? Please keep in mind that whatever definition you come up with must encompass not only physical death, but also encompass the deaths of Genesis 2:17 and Revelation 20:14. Please explain this one since I think it is critical to understanding Total Depravity.
- Why does Jesus expect unregenerate people to have faith in Him (Mark 6:6) if that faith can only come from God?
- Apart from Ephesians 2:8-9 (which we will deal with under IG), why is faith never ascribed to God but always to mankind (as shown above)?
- Why does God call mankind to do something (seek Him) that they cannot do unless He causes them to do so? (am I wrong in saying that this would be like God asking me to fly knowing full well that I simply can֒t unless He gives the ability to?)
- If you already believe that people can have faith (though not saving faith) and that God can convict them, then what else stands in the way of them exercising that faith in Jesus?
- Why must Gods calling be effectual? How does it diminish God for people to not respond to His call?
Sorry for so many questions, but itҒs the only way I learn and these are the areas that I need to understand if I am to understand your position. I could draw it out over 5 comments but figured itd be easier to deal with in one
As an aside, I think your dichotomy between conviction and calling is fragile. There are strong parallels between John 16 and 1 Corinthians 15҅I believe that the conviction of the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirits work of convicting a person of the Gospel. All mankind will here the Gospel and be convicted of its truthfulness Җ not all will respond in faith.
Klompman I֒m sorry if my response came across the wrong way. I was responding to your statement that Otherwise, if dead men can't believe, then neither can they sin or do anything, nor can they be held responsibleӔ and basically saying that I would agree with the typical Calvinist response that a lack of ability to believe does not necessitate a lack of culpability for sin. If it came across the wrong way, Im sorry. If IҒm missing something there, by all means let me know. I also agree with your use of John 5:24 but have found that Calvinists can rightly state that whoever, within a Calvinist perspective, can in fact mean only the elect (thus, if their position is right, their interpretation is right). I hope to show that there are verses that simply dont fit within a Calvinist framework and thus must either change the system or be eisegeted into it. So, again, sorry if it didnҒt come across the way I intendedthis is why personal dialogue is so much more fruitful than written text
Seeking God
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-02 23:32:00Responsibility does not imply ability.
We have the responsibility to seek God and to have faith in God because He is Holy and He demands it of us. Just because God commands a thing does not imply that we have the ability to obey. (The 10 commandments for example). We SHOULD have the ability to obey. God created man with the ability to obey but we lost that ability in the fall. Our inability does not lesson our responsibility, however, nor does it make God unjust to continue with His expectations and demands. God commands us to love Him with all of our heart and soul and strength knowing full well that we are unable to do that. If anyone believes they are able to do that then I would encourage them to sell all that they have, give it
to the poor, then take up their cross and follow the Lord.
As for the word "Death". Perhaps it is over used and creates an impossible image in someones mind. Let's stay with the idea of seperation from God and substitute that for the word death. How far are we separated? As far as the east is from the west. Start out walking towards the east. Continue walking east. When you get to the end of east and east turns into west, that's how far the seperation is.
The result of the fall is total depravity or corruption. By this is meant that every part of man is rendered corrupt. The Canons say that man "became involved in blindness of mind, horrible darkness, vanity, perverseness of judgment; became wicked, rebellious, obdurate in heart and will and impure in his affection." There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word "total" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be....God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy; (Canons of Dort, 3 & 4)
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 09:34:27Tim Ŗ I must disagree. Responsibility definitely implies ability. How can God hold anyone accountable for something that, as I sense you are stating, is not even within their nature anymore. If it is not within their nature to have faith, we cannot expect responsibility.
Your use of the OT law is an important example. God told the Israelites that they were able to keep the law (Deut. 30:11) not in the sense that they would never sin, but because He had graciously provided through the law a foreshadowing of how those sins would be dealt with (the sacrificial system). The same holds for us today. The commands of God are not too difficult or beyond our reach ֖ not because we can live them perfectly but because God in His grace provides a salvation through Jesus.
I appreciate your willingness to keep separation as the primary description of death, but your allusion to Psalm 103 simply works against you. This Psalm does not speak of how far God is from us, it speaks of how far He has removed our sins from us a very different picture than the one you paint. I realize that there are many verses in Scripture that speak of how far greater and removed God is from usօ.but we must never forget the verses that speak of how close He is as well. But even all that aside, are you saying that the gulf of death that separates us from God is unbridgeable even by God? Through Jesus, is that not exactly what Christ makes possible (Job 9:32-35)?
There was no part of his nature that was not affected by sin. The word "total" must not be taken in the absolute sense as though man is completely depraved. Man is not as bad as he can be....God does restrain the working of sin in the life of man on earth. And sinful man still has a sense of right and wrong. His corruption is total in the sense that there is no part of his being that is pure and holy;Ӕ by your own admission, mankind still has a sense of right and wrong and his ability to believe (have faith) is not eradicated. Thus, if God bridges the gap between mankind and God brought about by our sinfulness (which is possible because of Jesus) and makes us aware of where we stand before Him (the conviction of the Holy Spirit), then cannot man֒s sense of right/wrong and ability to believe be directed towards God? Man, in this case has neither sought nor understood God on his own (Romans 3) but God has sought (Genesis 3:8-9, 4:6, 4:9) and taught mankind (John 6:45) thus retaining all the glory for God?
Finally, I need to ask that you use Scripture to back up what you say. Presume that I dont know the verses that you are referring to just so that we can both be certain that the verses that we are using are really saying what we say they are. I know what the Canons of Dordt say҅I want to know what Scripture says (and if Im wrong, to change what I believe).
Canons
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 09:36:02Tim: Could you please stay away from the Canons? They are man-contrived and not Scripture so they have no authority. Let's stick to the Word of God.
Canons vs Scripture
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-03 10:13:49While I ponder my next post I would like to say that what we are doing here is developing a Canon (of sorts). I avoided typing the extensive Scriptural references that are found in the Canons for the sake of brevity. If we can't trust the conclusions of men who have wrestled over these issues in the past, our wrestling won't accomplish much more. But, as requested, I'll avoid referring to those who have gone before and we'll develope our own Canon which will be ignored by the next generation.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 10:42:39"we'll develope our own Canon which will be ignored by the next generation."
LOL - :grin
I guess that's part of each generation learning to own the faith that has been passed on to them...
My conclusion
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-03 10:45:33As I've already stated, the entire TULIP hangs on the "T". If there is no Total Depravity then the rest is straw.
God holds us accountable even though we are unable to obey. He does this because He has not changed but we have changed. It was due to our sin that we lost our ability.
Deut.30:11 does not say the commandment can be kept. It says the commandment is not hidden. We cannot plead ignorance of the law. Neither can we bemoan our inability because it was by our own willful sin that we became disabled.
"Without faith it is impossible to please God." If all men have faith, as you say, then I guess all men are pleasing to God. Oh, but it is the application of faith. Now we're back on the slippery slope. Faith is no longer the issue but one's ability to apply that faith.
"That which is born of the flesh is flesh." (John 3:6) Need we go further? They that are in the flesh CANNOT please God. They cannot please God because the flesh has no faith or ability. From the sole of a man's foot to the crown of his head, there is no soundness in his flesh.
Does a man have ability? When a leopard has the ability to change it's spots or when an Etheopian has the ability to change the color of his skin, then I'll concede that we have the ability to do good and to be pleasing to God.
Until then, I rest my case as being Totally Depraved.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 11:36:49Tim Җ I realize that the KJV renders lo-nipletђ as hidden. However, its usage elsewhere (Deut 17:8, Genesis 18:14, Jeremiah 32:17, 27) shows that it has a sense of something not easyђ rather than something being mysterious. So, although I appreciate the KJV, I must defer to this words usage elsewhere for the definition of Deut. 30:11.
In quoting Hebrews 11:6, we really should quote the whole verse, And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.Ӕ This verse is in reference to Enoch who would not seemed to have done anything and yet it is because of faith that he is taken. The writer of Hebrews is clarifying that the commendation that he received was because of faith, not something he had done. Again, this verse places faith as being a responsibility of man, not a work of God.
Im not sure that John 3:6 is the best verse to prove your point҅All Jesus is saying is that just as we expect physical babies to come from physical birth, we ought to expect spiritual babies from spiritual birth (and, thus, being born again is not so outlandish as Nicodemus thought it was). Paul and Jesus use flesh in several different contexts (John 6:63, Romans 8:8, 1 Corinthians 15:50) and so we must look at how they are using it before applying it to the sin nature.
Understand, Im not trying to turn TULIP into straw҅but it seems from your opening words that TULIP interprets Scripture and if TULIP were to fall apart, we would not be properly interpreting Scripture. Would we not rather say that Scripture interprets TULIP and that if/where TULIP does not align with Scripture we change TULIP? That is what I am attemptingif you can show me otherwise, IŒm open to hearing where I am wrong
Separation
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 11:40:13Tim: You are quoting only part of Ps 103:12 and then you misinterpret it. Ps 103:12 says "As far as the east is from the west, so far has He removed our transgressions from us." Obviously, it does not speak of us being removed from God, it speaks of our sins being removed from us.
I suggest you read the whole Psalm and you'll get a much better picture of what God is like.
Written by Tim on 2005-05-03 21:10:16Russ said,
Quote:
I think that a clearer Biblical picture of death is separation from God rather than a sense of inability.
My analogy of east and west was not an attempt to quote Psalm 103. I understand what this psalm is referring to. My analogy was simply an attempt to define "seperation". My analogy, or definition, is as good as someone elses, isn't it? What definition would you give for "separation"? How far would you like for man to be separated from God? I say our separation is beyond our ability to reach across, that was the point of the analogy.
As for Deut.30:11. I understand your point as to the translation but whether we use "hidden" or "too hard" I believe the context of the passage is the same. The writer is describing the righteousness which is by faith and in no way is he implying the natural man's ability to adhere to the command.
Barnes says:
Quote:
The seeming ease of the commandment, and yet its real impossibility to the natural man, form part of the qualifications of the Law to be our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ.
Further, we need to be careful in our discussion of Total Depravity. As per the TULIP or the Calvinistic system, Total Depravity is referencing those who are without Christ and without the Spirit's power in their lives. It has to do with Soteriology and man's condition before salvation.
I, for one, will not stand on my own understanding and interpretation of Scripture. I must rely on the wisdom of men who were greater and wiser than I am. We've already excused the Canons. I'm sure we'll ignore the commentators. If I'm left to simply argue against your point of view without any consideration of other writers then there is nothing left for me to say. For example, the interpretation of Deuteronomy 30:11 that I presented is held by Barnes, Gill, Keil & Delitsch, Darby, Scofield, Calvin and Luther...to name a few. If we were to simply wave their interpretations off as invalid and say, "Let's stick to the Scripture." that leads nowhere. I wouldn't want people to accept my understanding on face value alone.
I don't know where else to go with our discussion. I've enjoyed it though.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 13:30:17Tim - "I say our separation is beyond our ability to reach across, that was the point of the analogy." Sorry, I didn't understand it this way. I would agree - we cannot reach across, but the point I've been trying to make is that He has reached across to us...
" I must rely on the wisdom of men who were greater and wiser than I am...If we were to simply wave their interpretations off as invalid and say, "Let's stick to the Scripture." that leads nowhere." As I noted in the beginnig of my post, I also rely on others for what I'm writing. I also have no particular gripes with creeds, canons or catechisms, though I am more inclined to believe those that have a longer history than a shorter one. I encourage you to rely on others, but to be able to rearticulate what they've said in your own words. If we cannot support what we believe (even if we've learned it from other great teachers) with Scripture, then how can we hold to Sola Scriptura? I know that's going to come across harshly, and its not intended to....if we were face to face, I'd be saying it in a voice of loving encouragement - I try to make sure that my theology is firmly backed by Scripture which contextually states the same thing my theology states....when others can show that I have not done that, I will (and have) changed my theology.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-03 13:31:04Oooppss - I hit send too quickly...
Thanks for your input Tim - I have also enjoyed it!
Excellent Discussion folks
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-03 14:08:00IExcellent discussion. For my part, I have chosen mostly to stay apart from the conversation letting the flow progress save for a minor interruption here (and back there). Doubtless there will be more discussion since I have submitted this to the Christian Carnival. That being the case, I would strongly encourage referencing Scripture since this may prove to be a study for some of our readers. There are several people in my own assembly who read this site in the hopes of learning more from the Scriptures so I applaud as many Scriptural references as possible in light of the flow of the conversation.
Seeking
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-03 20:42:33Pastor Russ: I'm not ready to concede that no one seeks after God. I'm familiar with Rom 3:11, quoted from Ps 14:2,3. This is said of the godless, I realize that. But what about the other verses dealing with seeking after God, like Deu 24:1, Is 55:6, Mt 6:33 and Heb 11:6. Why would God call people to seek Him if they can't? Take Is 55:7 "... let the wicked forsake his way" shows to whom Isaiah is speaking. Jesus says in Mt 6:33 "Seek ye first ..." Heb 11:6: God rewards those who diligently seek Him.
So, I take Rom 3:11 and Ps 14 to mean: "people tend not to seek Him, it is not in their nature, they just don't, normally." The way a parent sometimes talks to a child: "You never put your toys away!" Perhaps it is a lament by God, as to man's propensity.
Of course, this is all tied up with the T of TULIP which holds that depravity includes inability, which I reject. It flies in the face of all of scripture where we are asked to come, repent, believe etc.
I'd be interested in your comments. I very much appreciate your discussion of this much-debated topic.
Written by Name: PastorRuss on 2005-05-04 08:24:23Klompman - I think there can be a spectrum of thinking on the ability/inability of man to pursue God. Actually, what few realize is that Paul does not exactly quote Psalm 14 as it appears in the LXX in Romans 3. Where Psalm 14 is talking about the ungodly and says they never seek God, Paul states that we never diligently seek God, changing the meaning slightly and bringing it more in line with what you are stating. You and I would probably be very close on that. However, I realize that there are those who would still balk at this. So, what I attempted to communicate was that man's ability/inability is really of no consequence (imagine that - we've been arguing about the wrong thing all these years :eek ). In the end, I would feel that a Biblical approach is that God must come to man (I believe through the conviction of the Holy Spirit) in order to make them fully aware of their position before God and creating the opportunity for them to exercise their faith (which is already existent in their lives but directed elsewhere). Does that help?
Seeking
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-04 09:22:03Yes,thank you. I see that even any seeking that we might do can only take place when we become aware of God, (Heb 11:6) otherwise we would not know what or whom we are seeking. After all, "faith comes by hearing ... the Word of God." And as soon as we hear God's Word the Holy Spirit can start convicting us.
But let's carry on to the U, there will be lots to discuss there.
Is the sky blue?
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 09:44:34You can choose to call it something else or ignore the label altogether, Russ, but that's prevenient grace in a nutshell. It was Wesley's solution to the problem of ability. The problem with it is that it ignores or explains away all the passages that say man is blind, bound, deaf, dumb, dead, corrupt, incapable, unwilling, wicked, evil, abominable, unrighteous, not good, bankrupt, bent, broken, deceitful, unjust, a liar and of their father the devil. Men are by nature children of wrath and until their nature is changed they will remain under the wrath of God and the condemnation of His Holy Law. The only thing that will bring about a change in his nature is the new birth which is a gift of God.
I do understand that you would say the new birth is a gift and comes about when a man exercises his faith and he will exercise his faith because of the conviction of the Holy Spirit.
The Calvinist position is that a man is by nature enmity with God. Not AT enmity but enmity itself. (Romans 8:7) He is not subject to God's laws, neither indeed CAN BE. The word "Can" has to do with ability. What are God's laws that he cannot be subject to? Repent, Believe, Trust, Seek, Come, Turn, et.al.
God commands these things of us and uses these laws as a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ. The fact that we cannot obey them shows us how bankrupt and hopeless we are. It was merciful of God to make these demands of us, even though He knew we couldn't obey them. Because, by these laws comes the knowledge of sin. (Romans 3:20) Not just a definition of what sin is but a realization that we are unable to keep His laws for if we fail in one, we've broken them all. We must beat upon our chests and ask for mercy.
Mercy
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 10:29:09This is almost sounding semantical to me right about now, so if I can ask a small question. If the purpose of the Law is to show someone how bankrupt they are and they beat upon their chests and ask for mercy does this mean they have been regenerated?
Yes...
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 11:30:31Someone who is enmity with God and the enemy of God would never ask for mercy. They wouldn't feel their need for mercy because they are dead in trespasses and sins. The Holy Spirit uses the Word of God to quicken the unbeliever and draw them to Christ. If they see the need for mercy then they have been regenerated. They have then "obtained, like precious faith." (2 Peter 1:1) There's no need to "obtain" something you already possess.
Now, is everyone brought to where they are able to cry "Mercy"?
No.
Bring on the "U" Russ! :grin
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 12:08:51Yeah, it looks like we're going into the "U" realm now doesn't it.
Still stuck in my question then, can an unregenerate learn their bankruptcy in light of the Law without becoming regenerate?
No
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-04 12:14:55We need the "U"
Quick Note
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-04 14:55:36The only reason I link to this brother is because he addresses this post directly: otherwise, I've read a bunch of TD posts throughout the blogosphere and don't want to bother linking to them again.
here
Obtaining Faith
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 11:42:46Tim: I don't think you should be using 2Pe1:1 to support your belief that faith is a gift. Peter is not talking about faith in the sense of "the ability to believe" but rather that salvation (or, the same kind of faith) is available to gentiles as well as Jews, a concept he had been struggling with earlier. (Acts 10:9-15)
I don't know Greek but it seems to me that he uses it in the same sense as Jude in Jude 3: "Contend ... for the faith" where faith means "the whole body of revealed salvation truth contained in the scriptures" (MacArthur), as in a creed or confession, if you like.
As to faith being a gift, you might be interested to know that not even Calvin interpreted Eph 2:8 to mean that faith is the gift. And he is in good company with a number of other scholars. (List supplied on request)
To Obtain and Eph.2:8
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-05 13:53:31Klompman,
Here is Thayer's definition of "obtain"
Quote:
lagchanō
1) to obtain by lot
1a) to receive by divine allotment, obtain
Also, Kittel's Theological Dictionary
Quote:
œTo attain, usually by lot (cf. Hesych. : lagcavnein: klhrou`n ). With striking frequency it is thus combined with the word group klh`ro", klhrou`n etc. Even where there is no casting of lots, the attainment is not by oneԒs own effort or as a result of ones own exertions, but is like ripe fruit falling into oneҒs lap.
As to Ephesians 2:8. I had four years of Greek in Bible College and Three years of Greek in Seminary. I have translated all but the book of Hebrews from the original. This was done in the courses I took. I do not claim to be a scholar or the final authority but I have asked several professors and men who are smarter than myself about Ephesians 2:8.
The Anticedent (what goes before) to the preposition (the word "that") is the entire clause.
And THAT not of yourselves, it is a gift of God.
What does the word "that" refer to. What is it that is not of ourselves? The word "that" refers to the entire clause so that it could be understood as follows:
For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT GRACE is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.
For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT SALVATION is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.
For by grace are you saved through faith, and THAT FAITH is not of yourself, it is a gift of God.
We cannot single out Grace or Salvation and make the word "that" point there while ignoring the word "faith". The word "that" points back to the entire clause for "Grace", "Saved" and "Faith" are inseperable.
This is my understanding. Hope it helps.
That
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 16:29:40Thanks Tim. I am not a Greek scholar thus must rely on others:
F.F. Bruce (a Calvinist) says regarding Eph 2:8: "The fact that the demonstrative pronoun 'that' is neuter in Greek (touto), whereas 'faith' is a feminine noun (pistis), combines with other considerations to suggest that it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith that is described as the gift of God. "
Calvin: "But they commonly misinterpret this text , and restrict the gift to the word 'faith' alone. But Paul ... does not mean that faith is the gift of God, but that salvation is given to us by God ..."
As for myself, from reading the scriptures I conclude that all people have the capacity to believe. It is not our inability to believe but our unwillingness that is the problem. I cannot accept the idea that God asks us to do what we cannot do and then holds us responsible for not doing it.
PS - 2Pe 1:1
Written by Name: Klompman on 2005-05-05 16:52:50Tim: My problem with your interpretation of 2Pe 1:1 is not with the word 'obtain' or 'attain' but with the word 'faith'. I don't think that Peter meant faith as 'believing' but the body of truth that is sometimes referred to as 'faith'.
Perhaps you could confirm whether the Greek word for 'faith' in 2Pe1:1is the same as that in Eph. 2:8.
Accountability
Written by Name:Tim on 2005-05-05 17:28:02It's kind of like a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. He tells the judge he wasn't able to control the car because he was drunk. His condition made him lose his ability to abide by the rules of safe driving. He tells the judge he shouldn't be held accountable to the law and it is unjust to expect him to abide by a rule that he cannot follow. The judge finds him guilty because his inability to obey the law doesn't lesson his responsibility or his accountability. He was in his disabled condition because of his own sin.
The same holds true for us in regards to God's laws and judgment.
Written by biblerey on 2005-05-05 18:41:40Same word for faith as in Ephesians brother Klompman.
I don't think we should have a problem with faith being part of the gift of God's salvation. The fact God has mercy is a gift because He didnt' have to have mercy. The fact that God says this salvation is offered through faith is a gift because if God wanted to He could've said "by being perfect." then we would've been up the creek.
As I've said in the past...faith isn't a tight little bundle that is given and a person can open it up and say "here is my saving faith." I didn't trust my wife by waking up one day and saying "I trust her" nor did she give me a ring and I said with now opened eyes "I trust you, honey!" Rather I saw her actions, I witnessed her testimony, I heard about her and one day I saw and said "You know what, I trust her." I didn't summon up the trust but she engendered it in me...by her trustworthiness.
Written by Name
Written by Name: Christine on 2005-06-18 00:45:09"It's kind of like a drunk that gets behind the wheel of a car and kills someone. He tells the judge he wasn't able to control the car because he was drunk. His condition made him lose his ability to abide by the rules of safe driving."
My problem with this analogy is that the drunk could choose to drink or not drink. Human willpower to resist some sin does exist, otherwise every unregenerate husband would be a wife beater and an adulterer, and we know that is not the case. No human willpower will resist all sin. No man can choose to have a sin nature or not. That is where I think the analogy breaks down.